Sloan files “I knew nothing!” Motion to Dismiss
Unhappy with being named a defendant in the SEC’s civil case against TelexFree, Faith Sloan, one of the schemes top promoters, has filed a Motion to Dismiss the SEC’s case against her.
Despite being one of the more prominent faces of TelexFree, self-titling herself as a “leader” and appearing at most, if not all, of TelexFree’s promotional events where she was seated front-row with other TelexFree top-earners, Sloan is claiming she knew nothing of the deception and fraud behind the $1 billion Ponzi scheme.
Acknowledging that she ‘operated websites touting TelexFree” and appeared in promotional videos posted on YouTube‘, Sloan claims this does not prove she has ‘engaged in fraudulent conduct‘.
(the SEC) must state the circumstances constituting that fraud “with particularity”.
Apparently Sloan feels the evidence of her promotion of a billion dollar Ponzi scheme is not “particular” enough.
Why?
(the SEC) has summarized comments that Sloan allegedly made on the TelexFree website concerning the TelexFree compensation plan.
(the SEC) does not allege that Sloan composed the comments attributed to her on the website nor does (the SEC) describe with particularity any manipulative or deceptive device that Sloan allegedly used to sell memberships in TelexFree to those interested in purchasing such memberships.
If Sloan is to be believed, evidently the misrepresentation of a billion dollar Ponzi scheme is neither manipulative or deceptive.
In support of her motion, Sloan goes to great lengths to distance herself from TelexFree’s owners and management:
Nowhere in the Amended Complaint is there any allegation that Sloan was a party to the creation or operation of the alleged Ponzi scheme or the definition of the TelexFree compensation plan.
(The SEC) does not even allege that Sloan was employed by any of the Defendants, that she shared or even participated in their illgotten gains.
Sloan was, in fact, an independent business owner, who was compensated for her services to (TelexFree) like all of the other “promoters” of TelexFree and no more.
While “no more” might have a ring of finality about it, there’s a critical distinction to be made between Sloan and “all the other TelexFree promoters”.
Sloan didn’t lose money in the scheme. She’s part of an exclusive club of TelexFree net-winners.
Unfortunately due to ongoing forensic investigations on the data seized by authorities back in April, exactly how what percentage of TelexFree affiliates lost money in the scheme has yet to be made public.
What we do know though is that historically, the percentage of net-winners in a Ponzi scheme is but a fraction of the total affiliate investor-base.
“Like all of the other promoters” my ass.
Concluding her arguments, Sloan then drops one final nauseating plea of ignorance:
knew nothing about TelexFree’s income, sales or finance. Whatever she knew, or thought she knew, was based on what she had been told by her co-Defendants at webinars, until she became disappointed in their failure to keep their promises early in 2014 and realized that she had become the victim of their conduct, like so many other “promoters” of TelexFree.
Ladies and gentlemen, the following exhibits are taken from none other than this very blog.
I present to you comments made by Sloan circa February 2013. Here Faith Sloan can be seen publicly claiming that the “issue” of the TelexFree criminal investigation in Brazil was “addressed” and a “non-issue” for TelexFree in the US:
(TelexFree’s) demise is over-exaggerated by the unknowing. They have addressed that when it was an issue back in January. It is a non-issue.
This “non-issue” would ultimately lead to a permanent injunction being granted against TelexFree in June 2013. As for it being a non-issue, given that TelexFree used the same Ponzi scheme business model the world over, as is clear it became “an issue” in the US when TelexFree ran out of money to pay investors with in early 2014.
In the same exhibit, Sloan goes on to dismiss concerns raised by a BehindMLM reader about TelexFree’s compensation plan as “hearsay”:
Honey, Julia, if you knew the compensation plan and how the products came in to play, you would know how they are able to pay out the income for 52 weeks. But I will leave that up to you.
As adults I hope we have ‘graduated’ and are able to figure out compensation plans and the business model without being swayed by hearsay.
That first paragraph is important, as it wholly annihilates Sloan’s “I knew nothing” defense.
Remember Sloan’s assertion earlier that her promotion of TelexFree was neither “manipulative or deceptive”?
With intimate knowledge of TelexFree’s compensation plan and business model, Sloan quite obviously knew she was participating in a Ponzi scheme.
The proof of this is in the comment quoted above. Specifically:
If you knew the compensation plan and how the products came in to play, you would know how they are able to pay out the income for 52 weeks.
Contrast this to Sloan’s claim in her motion that she ‘knew nothing about TelexFree’s income, sales or finance’.
Additionally, not cited in Sloan’s Motion to Dismiss is any mention of her efforts to sell TelexFree’s “products” to non-investors (retail customers).
According to information provided to them by TelexFree and the various banking institutions and payment processors they used, the SEC have pegged TelexFree’s retail VOIP activity at 0.25% of the company’s total revenue. So insignificant is revenue from any other third-party product that these figures to date have not been cited.
In claiming that “the products” and “how they came in to play” was how TelexFree paid out 200% annual ROIs to Ponzi investors, she herself must clearly have had significant retail activity taking place within her own business.
In her motion, Sloan asserts
Whatever she knew, or thought she knew, was based on what she had been told by her co-Defendants at webinars.
If Sloan is going to argue that what she was told was that the sale of products and services was how TelexFree “are able to pay out the income for 52 weeks”, she’s going to have to front some pretty convincing retail customer figures.
Failing that, I’m sure the SEC could look into the seized records and provide the court with an exact breakdown of Faith Sloan’s generated revenue from recruited affiliate investors versus retail customers.
I mean gee golly gosh. Sloan made thousands of dollars in TelexFree, there must have been mountains of retail activity taking place in her “independent business”. Right Faith?
Furthermore, when the SEC called Sloan up to inform her of their case against her, Sloan didn’t protest with cries of selling VOIP and third-party products to customers and only doing what management told her to do.
Before hanging up on the SEC agent, Sloan’s initial reaction was:
Why are you picking on me? There are bigger promoters than me.
Before the agent even had a chance to explain the SEC’s case against her, Sloan had already jumped to the conclusion that she was being held liable for promoting TelexFree. And the question begs to be asked: Why would she think there was anything wrong with being the promoter of a legitimate VOIP company?
A decision of Sloan’s Motion has yet to be made, but if the current preliminary injunction against her is upheld, Sloan paints a pretty bleak picture:
Sloan moves that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and the Preliminary Injunction entered by this Court on May 8, 2014, because she always told the truth in her dealings with “promoters” of TelexFree and did not engage in any manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances to sell TelexFree “securities” to anyone.
Sloan also asks that, should the court deny her motion, she be permitted to pay $10,000 in stolen TelexFree affiliate investor funds to her lawyer.
Having lost her income from TelexFree, Sloan relies on her savings and will be denied her constitutional right to due process unless the Preliminary Injunction shall be dissolved, because she will be unable to retain and pay her attorney to defend her in this matter.
Perhaps a copy of that Sanderly Rodrigues video of Sloan declaring she’s “100% TelexFree, booyah!” might be aired in court too. Providing of course the SEC saved a copy of it.
Since the preliminary injunction Rodrigues, possibly in violation of the injunction, has deleted the YouTube account on which Sloan’s testimony (along with several other named defendant affiliates) was uploaded to.
Sann Rodrigues, a fellow co-defendant in the SEC case against Sloan, also claims to be a multi-million dollar earning “victim” of TelexFree.
Footnote: Our thanks to Don @ ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Sloan’s Motion to Dismiss.
It should also be noted that Sloan used her blog and Facebook account, as a TelexFree leader, to publicly deny the existence of a US TelexFree investigation, after regulators in Acre claimed there was one last year.
Seen as a “go-to” source of inside information on TelexFree by affiliates, she also routinely told them to ignore any criticism of the company and to ignore information that was published on blogs such as BehindMLM.
The truth about Ponzi schemes tends to have a negative impact on one’s investor recruiting efforts.
All gains from TelexFree were ill-gotten. That’s why, whether she is found guilty or innocent, she will be disgorged of those winnings.
The 0.25% of VOIP was probably in the TelexFree offices.
Just to be clear, “motion” means nothing by itself.
However, the “it’s all them, I know nothing” defense basically is claiming ignorance, negligence, or outright willful blindness. And they are three separate but related concepts.
Ignorance: I didn’t know that’s illegal
Negligence: I should have known it’s illegal and I neglected to check
Willful blindness: I didn’t know, and I don’t want to know.
Historically, willful blindness is not acceptable in court as it’s considered a form of fraud in itself. That leaves negligence and ignorance.
However, searching some archives shows that Sloan is basically going for “contributory negligence”, i.e. “everybody else is also guilty” as well as “I’m a victim of fraud too” defense.
Contributory negligence is generally NOT accepted as defense if the defender is indeed guilty of fraud and is trying to pass the blame onto others.
There is also the concept of “justifiable reliance”, i.e. Can and should have Sloan completely trusted the words of TelexFree management (i.e. Merrill and Wanzeler) plus Councel (Nehra) without question? That’s what she’s asserting now.
Just random reading brought up a case “Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol”, where SN reached a ‘exclusive’ licensing deal with Warhol estate to use some of Warhol’s works based on representation by estate admin that they have control over all of Warhol’s work. Turns out that wasn’t quite true.
A good portion of Warhol’s work is in public domain, and some work have been granted license to others by Warhol himself. SN sued the estate for misrepresentation, and won initially, but later lost on appeal when court ruled that SN has failed to perform due diligence (i.e. Google search or such) on which Warhol works are in PD or otherwise licensed and which ones are under Warhol Estate control.
SN should NOT be “justifiably reliant” upon Warhol Estate representation that they control “all” of Warhol’s works.
Can Sloan be “justifiably reliant” that she had NOTHING to worry about TelexFree’s legality? Stay tuned!
Apparently she is a persuasive and likeable individual and would appeal to a jury.
Maybe the SEC will move to have all the defendants tried together.
Well, being an “little old black lady” sort of helps. Kinda like Burks “the singing magician” who “wouldn’t hurt a fly” (according to Zeekheads) pulling off the Zeek Rewards scam.
Apparently some victim family got a brand-new-spanking lawyer relative (who got his bar admission less than a year ago) to file a class action lawsuit against TelexFree for… $5 BILLION dollars. Yes, BILLION with a “B”
http://billerica.wickedlocal.com/article/20140604/NEWS/140608530/12426/NEWS
And this is only the THIRD class-action against TelexFree. Another guy also sued for 5 billion. Muahahahaha!
Sloan is trying to do a re make on her history. In one of his maaaavelous audio’s, right around the time the shit was hitting the fan and the compensation plan was being changed, Labriola injected into his usual yammer something about speaking to Faith Sloan on a daily basis and how she would give him a hard time.
Also, around the time that the Boston event took place and the new compensation plan was being unveiled she did jump ugly on her blog when she got back home about what waste of time it was and she was really pissed about the comp plan.
Back in the very beginning she had one of the “no no” income calculators on her site. They eventually made her take it down.
She also did promote herself going to another country as well to do a promotion for Telexfree. I can’t remember the country but somwhere like Cambodia?
Love how her lawyer twists his getting paid with the idea that poor Ms Sloan won’t have proper representation if she can’t get 10 grand from her ponzie money to pay him.
Now stand back for the nut parade.
This idea of jury appeal is why I think the SEC may want to try all the defendants together.
The “I did not know” argument may work for a particularly sympathetic defendant but it strains credulity when all of the defendants appear in front of the jury using the same excuse.
Add factors like “community member, helping elderly people, family person” etc., just like Merrill did. 🙂
That’s the right way to attract some negative attention from a prosecutor. Merrill got something about “cult-like community”, and about general flight risk because of his family loving personality. 🙂
The one with the best defense so far, based on limited information, seems to be Steve Labriola. Defense = normal job, rather than management or promoter. He can claim that he did exactly what a Marketing Director is expected to do = promoting the company itself to a general market rather than recruiting investors to an illegal program.
He can compare himself to a hired professional. They do a job for the company, but they don’t have any deeper knowledge about the details. They’re not in position to ask questions about it either
If Labriola has no downlines and was strictly taking salary, same as Nehra, there may be a bit of merit to that argument. But only a bit.
The problem again, is “justifiably reliant”. Is Labriola “justifiably reliant” that he’s promoting a legitimate company?
There’s another concept: comparative fault. He may be less liable, but he’s not off the hook.
Nehra, on the other hand…
We were discussing her potential appeal and performance in front of a jury, not a bail release hearing.
I specified “based on limited information”, because he most likely has been more involved.
Nehra is a lawyer, and should normally have access to some vital information. A hired Marketing Director (Labriola) doesn’t need access to any vital information.
The charges revolves around promoting and selling unregistered securities, not about promoting the company itself. If he can avoid being charged with organizing the operation, he should more easily be able to avoid being charged with selling or promoting fraudulent unregistered securities.
Faith Sloan doesn’t have a very good defense, but Labriola may have. He may lose it if he use it incorrectly.
I don’t think “little old black lady” types of ideas are very good. There’s too little substance in ideas like that, they don’t really prove anything of importance. They can be met with “So what? Merrill is a 53 year old white guy. The case isn’t about height, age, race or gender”.
“Didn’t have access to any vital information” is a much better argument than “little old black lady”. It’s a general rule (in communication) about not using yourself as an argument, e.g. to prove something.
A friend of mine said to me today.. that his team leader told him TF’s case got dismissed and they’ll be up and running in no longer than 2 months..
I couldnt believe my ears… but oh well… fool’s hope..
Oh come on. The “investors” I mean promoters themselves went ape shit when the comp plan was changed to “require” sale of the product. Why???? because they never joined Telexfree to create a business but only to create money for themselves.
Why the outcry that it’s to hard to sell this over priced crappy product?
And the old I didn’t know, or it was my job goes back to Hitlers guards etc that said I was only following orders. Really?
Labriola was traveling world wide promoting an illegal Ponzie scheme and at the same time out right lieing about investigations and discouraging followers from reading blogs that were shedding light on them.
The company was shut down in Brazil. Banks were refusing to do business with Telexfree…In his last green tie video when Rome was burning he was encouraging people to still invest in some comp plan that was going to be extended….He also in the same video made it sound like legitimate news outlets were writing good stories about them…
He even said , you’ll have these articles to show and print out and use as a tool. He went to Hatti to sell a product that no one would have the tools to use and it would have been to expensive….yadda yadda yadda…..He knew.
These people have no moral code. Just like the fools that are going to start these moronic 5 billion dollar law suits.
Really? you can prove that you have 5 billion dollars worth of damage done to you? How bout a lawyer is blowing smoke up yo butt and your going to be paying his fees and in the end get nada.
Let’s try to keep it real.
And let’s not forget. Labriola has a history with the owners of Telexfree. He wasn’t hired for the job because he had a great resume as a marketing person with past successes.
He was hired because now Telexfree was comming to the USA and they needed the English speaking rah rah guy and Labriola was sick of mowing lawns.
Labriola has probably been more involved than what’s visible in the complaint, but most of the charges against him are about what a Marketing Director normally is expected to do in a normal job.
“Normal job” is actually a valid defense argument. Ponzi schemes may have employed a lot of ordinary people in normal jobs, e.g. support people. “They supported a Ponzi scheme” will be rather vague, because a support job normally is about supporting customers.
Hitler’s guards were charged with crimes they personally had been involved in, and tried to use the defense argument “I was ordered to do it, I only followed orders”. That’s not a valid defense argument, they had still been directly involved in crimes.
IIRC, it wasn’t about “Hitler’s guards” either, but about leading officers who had ordered something illegal, and people who had performed those illegal actions. It wasn’t about being a guard, but about the orders and actions.
It’s about being personally involved in the illegal activities. A court must recognize it as something illegal.
The case isn’t about travelling world wide. 🙂
Investigations: “I’m not familar with ANY such investigaton. If there had been any investigation, we would most likely have been contacted for information”.
“Don’t read all the negative stuff” sounds like an ordinary part of a marketing job.
He hasn’t been charged with ANY of those allegations? None of them seems to involve anything illegal.
“History with the owners” is rather vague. It MIGHT indicate that he CAN have been involved in organizing something?
I have a “history” with all types of people, e.g. I have been driving criminals several times (not related to criminal activities, but in other situations). Most people will see it as just as legitimate as any other driving.
That’s not a good argument. The case isn’t about moral code, and if it had been about it then it would need some clarifications. “No moral code” is simply too vague.
“Good moral code” can be about many different things. It isn’t about a fixed set of rules, it’s more about applying the right rules. It’s not something we “have” in ANY situation, even if people like to believe in that idea.
Most often it’s similar to people’s ideas of “social intelligence” or “integrity”, most people will simply be looking for reflections of their own ideas and values.
@Norway
At times your comments seem as though you think the whole case will be decided in a vacuume.
Or that everything the SEC knows and / or its’ strategies are contained within the complaint.
IOW, it’s all speculation with a capital “S”
Driving a taxi is a “normal job” but not when you know you are acting as a get away driver.
Hammering nails is a “normal job” but not when you hammer them into someone’s head.
Acting as a marketing director is a “normal job” but not when you are marketing illegal securities.
Keep it in context. Avoid the vacuum.
Labriola is only vaguely charged with that type of allegations. He’s mainly charged with being an insider and organizer of some type.
Faith Sloan has been charged with promoting and selling unregistered securities of fraudulent nature (simplified description). Some of the allegations are rather vague, e.g. what is actually “misrepresentation”?
Will it be “misrepresentation” if I describe the AdCentral contracts to be about “post 1 ad per day, 7 days per week, and get paid $20 for the job per week”? Most of the official marketing material had more detailed info focusing on selling VOIP services, the $20 per week was a minimum payment if people didn’t sell anything or didn’t recruit anyone.
Labriola may have a problem akin to the problem Andy Bowdoin had at ASD: He can’t afford to be seen as a person with money, and yet must project the image of a rock star.
Bowdoin’s problem proved to be that he was on the hook to an ex-wife for more than $160,000 while simultaneously being on the hook for restitution to the victims of the securities swindle he ran in Alabama a decade prior to launching ASD.
These kinds of dilemmas are not unusual in Ponzi schemes, which are per se fraud. Jason Bo Alan Beckman, a pitchman for the Trevor Cook Ponzi in Minnesota, owed child support.
It’s a double dilemma, really: If you use Ponzi proceeds to pay the support, you’re basically paying your ex-spouse and children with the proceeds of a crime. But if you don’t pay, you open yourself up for a date in support court — and that could open the door to secret cash conduits and potentially lead to exposure of the Ponzi.
The SEC alleged in an amended complaint that Labriola received $46,600 from a New Mexico entity known as “Above & Beyond the Limit, LLC” “that [Joe] Craft formed for [Carlos] Wanzeler in September 2012.”
Above & Beyond allegedly was the manager of CNW Realty State LLC, “a Nevis corporation that was formed in October 2012.”
It appears as though the SEC wants to know why Labriola allegedly was being paid by a U.S. domestic Wanzeler entity that also had an offshoot in Nevis.
If Labriola has a problem similar to Bowdoin’s, it could be a hard one to address.
Bowdoin tried to solve his problem by quietly sending a check once a month to satisfy the restitution due his Alabama victims. But he never got straight with his ex-wife, even as he was being given the rock-star treatment and setting up a shell company to siphon cash from ASD.
PPBlog
Why must you overly complicate things, M_Norway ??
They ARE “allegations”
First come the allegations in the form of a complaint or complaints.
Next the court decides if there is sufficient merit in the allegations and whether or not the defendant has a case to answer.
If the court then decides there is a case to answer, only THEN is the evidence presented in detail.
The SEC doesn’t need to be any more specific than it already has.
All your arguments contained “is a normal job, but not when you are …”, and “but not when you know you are“.
That’s a similar context as I pointed out in several of the examples, but I sometimes identified it more clearly.
Nope, I have relatively clearly identified “based on limited information” and “Labriola has probably been more involved than what’s visible in the complaint” in my comments.
I agree there is a LOT of speculation going on here. I doubt the regulators even know most of what they will eventually find out as they continue to gather and analyze information.
The bottom line is they knew enough to stop the damage, they are now getting all their ducks lined up to go to court. Everything else is keyboard envy.
I identified some arguments as valid (in Dorothy’s post). Other arguments were not very valid (“in the eyes of a court”). Not separating them will make it much more complicated.
My personal belief is that Labriola has been more involved than what’s visible in the complaint, but I didn’t analyse that (my personal beliefs).
The complaint has actually been amended one time, to clearly identify that people “knew, should have known” etc. what they were doing, plus other details. SEC clearly DID need to be more specific than it already had been in the first complaint.
None of the official marketing material I’ve seen on Portuguese sources focused on selling VOIP services. NONE.
And their VOIP wasn’t even working here until recently, AFAIK, so they really didn’t have nothing to sell.
At least here, it was all and only about the Ponzi.
That was actually a sidenote. I compared defense arguments.
The official marketing video(s) in USA presented both the VOIP service and the AdCentrals. “Earn $20 per week” was the minimum payment if people didn’t sell anything that week, they would earn more if they sold VOIP subscriptions.
You can use your own common sense. “Will a company of that type MOST LIKELY try to focus on the products, or will it simply ignore the products completely in presentations?”.
But, Faith, who do we blame for Cell-C Fund? And whose at fault in TVI Express, Royal Cruise Matrix, Millionaire Cycler, JSS Tripler and JSS Tripler II, EZ Wealth Solution, Club Asteria?
Tell me Faith, you proclaim on your CV
How can someone with a degree in Q-Methods and an MBA in Finance possibly be so obtuse as to not detect some smidgen of implausibility in Profitable Sunrise, Zeek Rewards, Affordable Affiliates, HCI, Imperia, Oceanside (one and two) ASD Cash Generator, Noobing, were you in PIPS?
Hell, did you buy postal coupons from Charles Ponzi himself?
You brag about what a business expert you are, you have led untold thousands into losing money in these programs, you have pimped them at African American Business Roundtables at the University of Chicago, at your mother’s church and at countless seminars and rally like meetings around the world.
Typing in your name and “scam” to a search engine generates more hits than typing the name of the CEO of General Motors (it does, try it) and now you say…
wait for it…..
“I didn’t know it was a scam!” ????
I am speechless….
he he he,,okay, it doesn’t.
But admit it, you DID look yourself, because its more plausible than anything Faith has pimped in the past. 🙂
They were graded.
My normal job is sales….I sell drugs to children. My normal job is housecleaner….I clean out my employers safe. My normal job is marketing director…I market illegal securities.
Having a normal job (or a recognizeable job title) has nothing to do with whether a person is acting lawfully.
Once the SEC proves the ponzi, that the contracts were unregistered, misrepresented securities Labriola is dead guilty of promoting them. His job, public appearances, and videos are, practically speaking, irrefutable evidence of this and its not even worth a trial.
Whether he knew what he was promoting was illegal is a different question. If he could convince a jury of this it might mitigate his liability but this has no bearing on whether he was promoting illegal securities or not. He almost certainly was and the SEC should have a simple task in proving it. This goes for all the defendants.
It doesn’t what?
get as many hits as the CEO of General Motors
I didn’t look for that (didn’t try to search for it).
Is the rest of the information correct? I was able to recognize SOME OF the programs from memory but not all of them. I was rather unfamiliar with the CV (never heard of it before), and generally unfamiliar with the rest of the information too.
First and fore most Telexfree has to be found to “be” a Ponzie scheme. The backruptcy piece has to be resolved as well.
The FBI and Homeland Security are the ones that raided the office and so far we don’t know what they will do with the information that they find. Money has to be traced and found.
These are all factors that will determine the next steps of finding any of the individuals that are presently under the microscope of criminal wrong doings.
There is a “history” of the owners, marketing director and top promoters having business ties with one another. What exactly “was” Common Cents Communications? Were they an MLM as well? I’ve yet to be able to find that information but I’m sure the FBI will be able to put the pieces together.
Bottom line is we “don’t” know what is going on in the real world of the investigations and that will all come out in court.
For now, all of us who are readers and contributors can only make comments based on our own conclusions of the information we do have and how we understand or read the court documents and understand law.
It’s true that many of the opinions or thoughts written here we bring from our own life experiences as to how we perceive the information. The fun thing about court cases “are” the arguements.
The great thing about a blog like this is being able to come and learn about a topic, contribute and see that there “are” so many different ways to see the same thing. Like art. : )
The charges revolves around promoting and selling unregistered securities, not about promoting the company itself. If he can avoid being charged with organizing the operation, he should more easily be able to avoid being charged with selling or promoting fraudulent unregistered securities.
Promoting the company itself “is” promoting and selling unregistered securities. Hellooooo???
I want to hear what you have to say but I must tell you that you are as frustrating as the fat lady in line at a Mcdonalds that pretends she doesn’t know what comes in a big Mac. Ugh!!!
You hide behind logic. Some thoughts or evaluations of a situation aren’t logical. Some things come from the gut. Big picture thinkers see the whole scene not just what is in front of them.
You have probably misinterpreted what a normal job is? Your examples were very little relevant as “normal jobs”.
“Normal job” means that the TYPE of job isn’t illegal in itself. Both your examples failed, they’re not really “normal jobs”.
You lost me there, that was never a point. “Normal job” was presented as a defense argument, not as a proof of lawfulness. If some type of activity is part of a normal job, what people are expected to do in that type of job, it may neither be negligent nor recklessly if they do it.
If some type of activity is NOT a part of a normal job, or in conflict with a normal job description, it may neither be negligent nor recklessly if people don’t do it.
It doesn’t protect against having done something knowingly, but it might be a defense against “recklessly or negligent” allegations.
Is the rest of the information correct? I was able to recognize SOME OF the programs from memory but not all of them. I was rather unfamiliar with the CV (never heard of it before), and generally unfamiliar with the rest of the information too.
The rest of the information is not only correct, its honestly a “greatest hits” list that is not anywhere near complete, just the ones I could remember off the tip of my tongue An internet search would likely turn up as many as a hundred more.
A CV is what a person with certain skills uses in place of a resume, generally, if your work and skills are more about what you can do than what jobs you have had, you would use a Curriculum Vitae instead of a resume. Google says:
Faith has never, to my knowledge, held a “straight job” of any consequence, and those quotes do indeed come from a copy of the CV she used in the past.
I’ve been following Ms. Sloan for a LONG TIME, she, along with Ken Russo and a few others are on my list of people I’d like to see in prison, and I have quite a lot of background information on her, from public sources as well as people who know her and her family.
I take a certain guilty pleasure in knowing that people she would consider life long friends in reality don’t have any higher opinion of her than I do.
Behind MLM has been indirectly mentioned in the other class action lawsuit, 14-cv-00316, Maduako Ferguson Sr. et al,
Paragraph 198, about the investigation in Brazil, January – March 2013.
It was circulated among affiliates.
Being mentioned indirectly is OK, but being used as direct source in a complaint is not a wise idea (because of evidence rules, e.g. Hearsay).
That class action lawsuit seems to be “Deep Pocket” motivated, it has a long list of banks, financial institutions, payment processors etc. as defendants.
There’s a Facebook page called “Sorrindo na TelexFree” (Smiling with TelexFree) that posted “BehindMLM is owned by a Brazilian: Oz, the author of BehindMLM blog is Brazilian and is being investigated by the police”
I will try to find this post and put it here for you guys to see.
That is old news. That post’s been discussed here a long time ago.
That won’t be necessary. There’s probably hundreds of similar TYPES of claims on the internet. 🙂
Didn’t know this was already discussed here. Here it goes anyway:
facebook.com/SorrindoNaTF/photos/a.101760776680704.1073741826.101749230015192/236134646576649/?type=1
That’s a laugh riot. Thanks
re: the “I knew nothing” defense.
Faith Sloan, 1/10/2007:
talkgold.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142675&p=1559384#post1559384
SD
Gregg Evans has a personal beef with Faith Sloan because he was one of the most persistent guy trying to marry her but she turned down his proposals due to a his nasty bad breath.
I’m no romance expert… but uh, wouldn’t the issue of bad breath come up long before a marriage proposal?
Too funny OZ
Did faith sloan pay her taxes since 2007?
To find the answer to that question, you’d have to check all the anonymous payment processors favoured by HYIP ponzi players.
Look up KCC: Both Stuart MacMillan and Alvarez & Marsal retentions allowed today, no objections filed.
Comments?
From ASD Updates:
James Merrill continues his whining with the court – “Mr. Merrill has been imprisoned for more than thirty (30) days now
represents a profound miscarriage of justice.”
Faith Sloan claims “she has been unable to pay for her food, her rent and her normal living expenses and will not be able to retain her attorney to defend herself in this matter, unless those moneys are released.”
She also says she wired 30.000$ to her attorney as a retainer, and wants back 15.000$ from that money for her, as well as 800$ in another account, if I well understood.
First Thought: 35 seconds is up.
Second Thought:
It appears like a deal was struck betweem the US Trustee, the SEC and the Telexfree group.
GT got paid, M&A and MacMillan are under contract nunc pro tunce (paid) and are consulting with the trustee for as long as he needs them. The US Trustee got his Motion to Appoint a trustee approved, the SEC still has a bite at the apple and MacMillan, though still under suspicion since he was appointed by previous management, gets a chance to redeem himself and be paid while doing so. He may be useful.
Its like watching sausage being made….look too closely and it gets kind of ugly.
The case lurches forward.
Meanwhile, last 5 Jun Sann Rodrigues posted a video apparently filmed at Miami International Airport, claiming that after 2 weeks traveling in Brazil, he’s back to the USA.
Behind him is the “Journey of Giants” exhibition placard, which effectively currently is at Miami Airport’s South Terminal.
He also thanks Popó and Regino Barros and mentions having been in Brasília (DF).
Apparently he’s really back to the United States.
if I well understood. I’m not so sure that was a correct conclusion.
It read to me more like, Sloan was asking for the $800.00 that was in a particular Bank of America account to be released from the freeze. Seems the court allowed it.
I think the 30,000 was wired to her attourney on a date in May and perhaps was subject to the freeze that was in place at the time and so the transaction of deposit into his account never happened.
It sounds as though she was asking that 15 of the 30 would be allowed to be released to her attourney so that she could secure representation. Not that she was asking for 15 to be returned to her. I could be wrong in my reading.
$800 is for Sloan (food, rent and living expenses), the $15,000 is to pay for her attorney.
At the time of publication the motion hasn’t been granted or denied, only submitted for consideration.
Surprised she has not pulled the race card yet. The problem that I see here is the Justice system pinning something on the top promoters (too few charged by the way) that constitutes a crime that warrants arrests and prison time.
Additionally, it seems like those indicted have been given way too much time which they could use to hide money. Merrill is the only one that has gotten canned so far and Katia? Is she even in jail or home?
Unless I see some real action in terms of refunds and justice being served, it sounds like nobody involved in the scheme is remotely worried about going to jail for the scam.
Apparently, their involvement in promoting a pyramid scheme isn’t strong enough to get them cuffed and hauled into the precinct.
Have their passports even been taken as a precaution? Are they on a no-fly list? Have all their assets really been frozen?
He’s done to show the justice system in America that he has nothing to worry about and that he is not a flight risk.
The fact that his green card or passport (if he’s a u.S.citizen) has not been confiscated is mind boggling. Nothing is happening to these guys. He’s probably enjoying his summer.
I doubt he’s enjoying his summer with the bossman in jail – he could be next.
Boston and surrounding areas is full of ex-TelexFree promoters that kept their money/earnings and are sitting quietly in the background. It amazes me that none of them have been indicted for fraud.
@Jamil Junior
Have you considered the idea that Sann Rodrigues recorded that video of him in Miami Intl. Airport as if he just arrived, in fact, the same day that he left to Brazil ( in order to fool court, government, affiliates… )???
He is for sure not a dumb guy, just like Wanzeler, he know how to play the cards.
Today he posted a link to his new youtube channel. It has his picture in front of his house with all those expensive cars. Unbelievable! youtube.com/user/sanntv
@Policarpio…
Yes, that would be something he could easily do and he lives in FL anyway. The authorities have access to flight lists to confirm whether he has traveled outside the country or not.
The real problem is that ALL top promoters, the likes of San Rodrigues and his immediate downlines have taken their money, deposited or hid it (I suppose) and are staying quiet in the background hoping nobody comes after them.
I keep saying that it would be wise to investigate SR and his first tier downlines for each country. His first tier downlines must have made at least 50% of what he made. Where is that money?
Yet, just Merrill is in jail. IN fact an American paying the price for a fully-Brazilian orchestrated and operated pyramid scheme. Seriously?
Not to mention that Immigration is asleep? 90% OF ALL Brazilian promoters in MA and FL are in the country illegally. Go check. Make arrests.
If the authorities are able to successfully prosecute San Rodrigues, that in and of itself would be a time consuming and difficult task. Because I suspect he will fight legally with all his might.
As for his downlines, IMO, as much as I would like to see their asses in jail as well, I’m not holding my breath. Sure, they all did something illegal, but going after them from a criminal standpoint (where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt) is too expensive and too time consuming.
I think it would be a major victory if some of these downline people just faced successful civil clawback litigation. Ofcourse, every one of them will plead ignorance and play victim. Just look at Faith Sloan’s defense and you will see what the prototypical defense will look like for the majority of high level promoters.
Plus, if, as you say, many of them are illegal, then they already keep a low profile and will be harder to bring to justice.
I think that the best result in this case (which will take several years BTW) would be for:
1) Successful criminal and civil prosecution of the 8 TelexFree defendants and
2)Successful civil clawback litigation against top earners with the maximization of funds to be returned to victims
Anything beyond that would be icing on top
Naz, Sann Rodrigues is a very smart people! When will the USA government arrest him?
Don’t expect too much.
Generally US don’t arrest people for white collar crimes… Except in very serious cases or the prosecutors convinced judge that the perps may make a run for it (or had already ran).
On the other hand, things are getting tougher for white collar criminals. I think the other day there’s a case on Ponzitracker a man is going to get 18 years for a relatively small Ponzi… only 1.5 million. Though 8 of those years are “suspended”, means the guy gets to spend 10 years in prison.
http://www.ponzitracker.com/main/2014/6/10/indiana-man-receives-18-year-sentence-for-15-million-ponzi-s.html
IMO, an arrest warrant for San will be filed at some point, but he may not be around when that occurs. It’s impossible to judge when this will happen as the authorities have a heavy burden of proof and it takes time to build a solid case especially in white collar crimes.
Complete redemption will never be achieved for TF victims. Us victims must be happy with small victories. It may not be the whole enchilada, but at least we wont go hungry (I hope :))
Naz, I wouldn’t be too concerned about whether the net winners can be found guilty.
Once it is determined the business was a scam, the receiver will go after everything they can that came from the scam. It matters not whether the net winner was aware they were doing something illegal, wrong, etc.
Those people may appear to be sitting in the background, but just like a duck paddling their feet like crazy below the surface, these scumbags are doing whatever they can to squirrel their ill-gotten money in foreign banks.
Sloan won’t need to pay for her hair stylist in jail, I hear they provide that free service.
A recent filing in District Court reveals that Sloan has refused to divulge the whereabouts of various funds on the premise that it may incriminate her. In spite of this she has requested that the Court approve transfer of funds to her attorney.
The SEC opposes.
I’ll have an article up on the SEC’s recent objection shortly.
Hilarious that they’re using Sloan’s post TelexFree Ponzi activity against her.
She didn’t miss a beat.